TroperA. writes:

The problem regarding Charles’s Dilemma is one facing many people in this day and age: the infiltration of groups —any and all groups, even ones that are not political in nature — by leftists hoping to turn them into engines for “social justice.”  This can be expressed in a maxim called O’Sullivan’s Law:

Any organization or enterprise that is not expressly right wing will become left wing over time.

The Sodahead explains this phenomenon thusly:

One of the reasons for this is leftist intolerance versus right-wing tolerance. Right wingers are willing to hire openly left-wing employees in the interest of fairness. Left-wingers, utterly intolerant, will not allow a non-Liberal near them, and will harass them at every opportunity. The result over time is that conservative enterprises are infiltrated by leftists but leftist enterprises remain the same or get worse.

Also, leftism is in and of itself a form of decay. It’s what happens not just to television shows but to nations, churches and universities as the energy given off by the big bang of their inception slowly ebbs away. Rather than expend vitality in originality and creation they become obsessed with introspection, popularity and lethargy. Leftism is entropy of the spirit and intellect.

Another reason is that the parasitic nature of Liberals/Leftists attracts them to existing money.

It can start out innocently enough, with a leftist joining a traditional conservative minded group and suggesting, ever so gently, “Hey, we’re a large group of like-minded people with power and resources–why don’t we use our resources and go do some work in the community for (insert name of innocent-sounding cause here.) It would sure help us to look good to our fellow community members.”  As time goes by, expect the nature of the “causes”–and the political discussion within the group– to grow ever more leftist and earnest in nature. Expect also to see more and more leftists filter into the group ( being introduced, of course, by the original leftist, in much the same way a cancer cell divides and creates more of its own kind.)  You may ask yourself why the more conservative members of the group tolerate the increasing politicization of the group and its mission. Why don’t they just throw the bums out and be done with it?

The answer is simple: Because that would be mean. And no one wants to be mean.

You see, perhaps the greatest victory achieved by the Leftist Cause is the transformation of our public space, of our zeitgeist, from one that respects truth, merit and accomplishment, to one that respects one single virtue above all others–

Niceness.

In fact, I have a name for it–The Cult of Niceness® . In the Cult of Niceness, there is one and ONLY ONE sin: Not being nice. Any activity that might have been considered a sin under the old system is fair game, as long as said activity causes no immediate and apparent physical harm to anybody. (Whether it causes indirect or long-term harm is inconsequential. Unimportant. Not worth even considering. It would take time and effort to research and examine the ultimate effects of every little change we make to our society, and if there’s one thing that liberals hate, it’s effort.

Here is the single scripture to the Cult of Niceness:

“You can do whatever you want, to whomever you want, with whomever you want, as long as everyone involved is a consenting adult and as long as you don’t hurt anybody (in an apparent, direct way).  Anyone who tries to stop you for any reason is (probably) a racist, a homophobe, a misogynist, and/or some Angry Old Religious White Man who wants to keep everyone from having fun because some book written by Iron-Age sheepherders 2000 years ago told him to do so.  As soon as these Old White Men are dead, we shall enter a new era of Free Love and Social Justice, where everyone joins hands and sings and are nice to each other. And share everything with each other too. And there will be unicorns also. Somehow.”

It sounds nice, doesn’t it? Who could object to a world where everyone is free to do whatever they want, as long as they don’t (seem to)  hurt anyone else? Isn’t that what HEAVEN is supposed to be like?

Jim’s Blog has an interesting take on the origins of leftism–that it originally derived from Christian Puritainism (namely, a virulent form of Calvinism). That it set itself on a course to save the world from sin, working, progressing towards a bright and shining future where members of the elect could celebrate their exclusive connection to righteousness. Those who rejected their message would be deemed heretics, and feel the full ire of the group- they would be ostracised, condemned, even physically attacked. The Puritans over time,  grew ever more earnest about converting others and grew ever more holier and holier in affiliation, until they found themselves one day at a crossroads, where they discovered to their dismay that they had become even more holier than God Himself!

After all, didn’t God condone slavery in the Bible?  Didn’t the church preach the submission of women to their husbands? Didn’t the church condone drinking alcohol? These things would never do for the suffragettes and progressivists of the Neo-Calvinist church, who wanted to take their philosophy in an even holier –and nicer-– direction.  So they abandoned God and Jesus and became a secular movement. But they didn’t rid themselves of their Calvinist desire to convert the heathen. In fact, said desire grew even more intense and urgent as time passed. They HAD to preach Social Justice and bring truth and light to the world. The (hell) fire burning in their hearts compelled them to. Said fire drowned out any internal doubts or any attempts (by others)  at reasoning away their beliefs.  Shedding themselves of the supernatural, the Secular Neo-Calvinists  thought themselves now free of superstition, believing their own soft-science philosophy about blank-slate equality and their “all behavior is shaped by social constructs, not nature” schtick  to be as rigorously provable as any highly meticulous, double-blind scientific experiment.

This kind of fervency is what Charles is up against. The leftist couple that joined their (ostensibly non-political) little wine group considers itself the Missionaries. It considers Charles and the rest of the group members to be South Sea Island natives, waiting to be converted to their enlightened secular religion. Instead of preaching the Missionary Position, it preaches the virtues of Eternal Sexual Freedom. The freedom to indulge in every depravity under the sun “as long as everyone involved are consenting adults and as long as nobody gets hurt.”

Which reminds me of a quote (the author of which I can’t recall at the moment):

“Those who offer complete sexual freedom with their right hand, tend to snatch away every OTHER form of freedom with their left hand.”

Puritans were known for many things during the course of history. Tolerating anyone who disagreed with their religion was definitely NOT one of them. If Charles wants to fight these people, he;s going to have a battle on his hands and the battlefield has already been rigged in the favor of the leftists, thanks to the public zeitgeist favoring the Cult of Niceness.

So what options does Charles have at his disposal?

Option #1: Bow out of the group and start another group–one that is highly politicized and explicitly right wing in nature. Any leftists who try to join the group should be tossed out forthwith as soon as they are discovered.  The problem with this solution is that not everyone in his current group is going to want to be part of an overtly politicized club. (Leftists use subtle methods of politicizing an organization, in much the same way that  slowly turning up the heat on a pot of frogs on the stove will keep them from crawling out to safety, but just dumping the frogs into a pot of boiling water, will cause them to jump out immediately.) If the only reason the wine club members have for showing up is to share wine and to look good in front of other Important Wealthy People (whom they hope to impress and do business with) then a highly politicized group that discriminates against certain people might not be an acceptable venue to them.

Option #2: Attack the Lefty and Gay Couples directly. State your objections to them using Facts, Logic and Reason. Then watch your friendships and business prospects dry up as the lefties point at you and cry “You meanyheads! How can you be so mean to us?! You have no reason to, apart from your antiquated religious beliefs telling you to treat us this way! This gay couple isn’t doing anything that affects you! They’re not hurting you in any way! They’re just minding their own business trying to live their lives in peace as a happily married couple, just like everyone else here!  Your objections to them are irrational! YOU’RE NOT BEING NICE!” Then all of the other members of the club look at you and shake their heads and say “What is Charles’ problem? Why is he being such a douchebag? Why does he hate these people? What’s wrong with him?”

Needless to say, a full frontal attack on these leftists (like the one Charles seems to be planning)  will go about as well as the Bay of Pigs Invasion. Expect total disgrace and failure.  The leftists control the battlefield and they have set the parameters of victory, as far as a direct attack goes. Objection to the leftists will be met with their most potent weapon: emotion. Histrionics. Cries of “Why are you doing this to us!?” No matter what you do or say, you cannot object to the leftists or their ideas without  appearing to be mean. And being mean is a cardinal sin in the eyes of most people in this world these days.

Option #3: Attack the leftists, but using flanking motions and subterfuge. This method is probably your best option because you have one and ONLY one advantage over the leftists– you are right. Also, there’s a very good chance that the leftists are either supporting progressivism (a) out of ignorance of its destructiveness or (b) because in their heart of hearts, they are vile, evil, wicked little slugs who are far more interested in looking good to others, than they are in actually HELPING others. (I’m guessing since they’re proselytizers, they belong to the latter group.) The only way you can succeed in your quest to oust the leftists, is to reveal  their true nature to the group. You must debate them while maintaining a frame that sees YOU as the concerned and caring person, and THEM as the meanyheads.

How to do this? Well, for one thing, I would not object to the gay couple’s inclusion into your group. In fact, I would embrace them. Not as people you want to welcome, but secretly as an opportunity to teach your fellow club members what they and the leftists are really trying to accomplish. You must ACT as the concerned and caring person, who sees the leftists engaged in self-destructive behavior and who really wants to help them.

Before I go any further, I would turn your attention to the works of the Anonymous Conservative, who’s written extensively on the tactics of debating with liberals.  Liberals tend to have weak amygdalas, which causes them to exaggerate external threats and to greatly fear being exposed and “out-grouped” by the groups they belong to.  In the words of AC:

“Liberals are processing incoming stimuli during debates through a completely different neurological filter compared to Conservatives, and their goals within debate are different as well. As a result, Conservatives will argue within the bounds of honesty and honor, to find logical truth, while Liberals will argue in a less rule governed fashion, simply to acquire followers, and create consensus around their views – in essence validating them through public acceptance. This difference in purposes during debate can be exploited, if you understand it.“

and:

If, as we assert, Liberals exhibit lower dopamine function, this would explain our inability to reach consensus in debate, even when facts are clear, and conclusions inevitable.

So yeah–fighting liberals head on with facts and reason is about as productive as an argument with a traffic cone.

If true, Conservatives will instinctively fail to meet the Liberal on the correct elocutionary battlefield, for it will not be enough to simply be correct. One must also focus upon preventing the Liberal from feeling as if they are amassing consensus around their false premise.

By combining these strategies, one will acquire the support of both those who base their decision upon logic, as well as those who base their decision upon the consensus of the masses. It will be only through these means that one maximizes the support within the populace for Conservative principles and values.

The Guide to debating a liberal is several pages long–far too much to reproduce here, but I highly suggest you read it and make use of it. What it boils down to is that most liberals are far more interested in looking good to a group than they are in actually doing good for other people. If you can create the right stimuli to shock the liberal brain and expose their true self to others, you can defeat them on the Battlefield of Ideas.

So some suggestions for your particular case.

Don’t  attack the liberals directly. Ask them questions as though you were genuinely interested in their philosophy. When they make suggestions as to how the world should be run, ask questions like “But won’t doing X policy result in (Y bad thing happening?) ” If they deny it, point out bad things in the past that have happened because of X policy. If they try to deflect your assertions by blaming it on “unreasonable right wingers who stepped in and screwed the poor” dispute their findings. Now is when you use facts and research (and be sure to use as many government/liberal college scientific studies as possible in your declarations. Surely they can’t object to research conducted by U of C  Berkeley or the government!) Turn the argument back on them by saying ” Why would you support bad things happening to innocent people? I thought you cared about people!”

If they say they are in favor of gun laws, point out that guns are pretty much the only way that women can even the odds in an attack in their favor. Tell them that gun bans leave women vulnerable, forced to depend on the services of a (predominantly male) police force for protection. Ask them why they would want to leave women vulnerable and unprotected (or dependent upon men to protect them)? Don’t they think that women are equal to men–equally capable of owning and using firearms? Why do they want women to be weak, anyhow?

As far as illegal immigration goes–point out how harmful it is to the nation’s black population and how it reduces wages for the lowest skilled native workers. Point out that amnesty is a scam to enrich the wealthy by importing cheap labor–and point to charts showing how the rise of obscene corporate profits and the rising level of immigration correspond over time.

Call identity politics out for the modern day slavery that it is– a plantation that supports the welfare/prison/education  Industrial Complex, designed to enrich bureaucrats and officials at the expense of the poor. Point out how well Blacks were doing before the Great Society and how poorly they did after it.

I don’t know how sneaky you want to get, but I’d suggest taking on the persona of a libertarian. (If you aren’t one already) Declare that you support everyone’s right to do anything they want AS LONG AS everyone is held to the same standards of behavior and as long as everyone deals directly with the consequences of their own behavior. Declare Statism and big government to be wrong–that people should be allowed to do whatever they like without regulation and interference from the government.  Big government is the source of the liberal’s salvation–the mechanical god they created to right the wrongs of society, feed and clothe everyone and bring about the Progressive Utopia on Earth. You need to attack it in such a way that shows how deeply concerned you are for the safety and well being of your fellow Americans. When your opponents accuse you of being heartless (after all, why wouldn’t you encourage others to accept the services of this wonderful god they’re trying to build for you?)  then tell your opponents that you have faith in the average American to determine his/her own destiny.

When they try to bash the Republicans, tell them that you think the party has lost its way–that the Statist factions within the party have taken over and that you want the Republicans to return to their libertarian roots and stop pumping money into bloated defense contracts or foreign wars. Declare yoiur disgust with the corporatocracy and the Big Banks taking over and robbing everyone blind with government help.

If you find yourself confronting the gay couple, ask them why they believed that government needed to sanction their union.  Tell them that you think marriage should be a private matter between two people and that the government can’t in any way shape or form make it sacred or binding. Only the individuals (or God ) can do that.  Tell then that you think the Government should stay out of the marriage business for everyone and that people should be allowed to take care of the legal aspects of their relationship with civil contracts. Tell them that you think  they gay rights movement has been hijacked by Statists who are using them to gain more control over the nation.  Tell them about Russia’s past, when a Statist movement (Marxism)   promised sexual freedom to everyone, only to have Josef Stalin renege on those promises and recriminalize homosexuality once he had fully seized power. If they try to deny that communism has anything to do with modern day progressivism, point out that ANY hugely powered Statist country could arbitrarily decare homosexuality evil, once it has full control over its people (and their sources of income and their healthcare).  Point out several instances in history when totalitarian regimes arose despite the people within those regimes believing fervently that such a thing could never take place.

One other tactic you could use: Tell them you saw a documentary about the HIV virus and ask them if there’s anything gay people are doing to stop it these days. Ask them if they think promiscuity is a problem for the gay community and if anything’s being done to solve it. If you couch it as a health problem that needs fixing and they try to defend it,  then they’ll look bad for defending a practice that’s objectively harmful by any outside observer.

You must be very delicate and careful in your arguments. You must never raise your voice or appear emotional lest you give power to the enemy. Never lose your frame. If they panic and start crying, remain calm. Shame them by saying that you thought more highly of them–that they seemed capable of engaging in a debate without histrionics. (If they’re female, stress that you are a gender equalist who believes that women are just as capable of defending their ideas as men are. Tell them you believe in them and have faith that they can hold their own in a debate without resorting to emotional tactics. ) Do everything you can to outgroup the liberals and make them appear bad in front of their friends. In doing this, you may make them so uncomfortable that they leave and never come back. (In the very least you might win a few converts into the “small government” camp.)

This is not an easy path to take since it requires much research, knowledge and performance ability. You might want to remain quiet and have a more capable person (whose views are more amenable with libertarianism, if yours aren’t) handle the argument phase. I apologize for this message’s length (and you certainly don’t have to accept or implement everything that I’ve said, but I thought it might be helpful for those willing to take on The Fight.)

 — Comments —

Matthew Hess writes:

Troper A’s comment is well-intentioned but I could not disagree with it more.

The only way that we will ever win any of these debates is with forthrightness and honesty. Subterfuge, “flanking maneuvers,” and reframing our opponents’ position is both ineffective and permits our opponents to set the parameters of the debate. For example, arguing that the Second Amendment is necessary to protect women strikes me as absurd. It does protect women, of course, but we all know that conservatives who cherish the Second Amendment are not primarily motivated by a concern for feminist causes. They are motivated by a desire to protect individual liberty, and a love of shooting and gun culture.  Gender issues are not even on the radar screen of your average NRA member.  This argument also implicitly assumes that “women” are a special interest group deserving of special solicitude, which is a liberal assumption.  Troper A is suggesting that we wave the bloody shirt of feminism in the face of liberals in an effort to put them on the defensive by playing the “gender card.”  This is a dishonest debating strategy and I don’t think we should use it.  It is beneath our dignity. It also won’t convince anyone. If we start arguing in favor of the Second Amendment from a feminist perspective, everyone will know that it is just a debating trick and does not reflect our true position. It’s just like when Obama claims to be a champion of free enterprise and small business – we all know he’s being insincere. Besides, I tend to think of people as “people,” not “women” or “blacks,” or whatever, and most traditionalists do too.

I was raised by stereotypical 70’s liberals.  My parents believed in all of the “values” portrayed on the “All in the Family” television show (the Rosetta Stone of 70’s liberalism) both before and after their divorce.   As a child, I accepted their views without question, because they were all I knew. But I was always consciously aware of the right wing conservative position. Fundamentalist Christians, devout Catholics, and economic conservatives like William F Buckley were all on my radar screen. At first, I simply laughed at them and thought of their views as illegitimate and retrograde. But eventually, they won me over. It’s because they were honest and forthright. They didn’t pretend to be liberals,  they weren’t afraid to state what they believe.  For the most part, they did so respectfully.

 For me, a real turning point came in college. I was a member of the College Democrats student group. One day, I was manning a voter registration table set up outside the Student Union. The College Republicans had their table right next to ours. I quickly got into a debate about abortion with a pretty girl sitting next to me, a member of the College Republicans. She was a staunch pro-lifer.   I simply repeated the pro-choice views that I had been indoctrinated with since childhood. As an only child, I had no experience with, or exposure to, babies.   Sexual liberation sounded great to me, and I saw an unplanned pregnancy is a burden that could interfere with one’s career, one’s financial freedom, and the like.   After I started debating this woman, it didn’t take her long to raise the real issue. She told me that abortion is murder, and that it involves chopping up a baby into pieces. She was horrified at my pro-choice views because she believed that I was condoning murder.  I made all of the usual counter arguments, that a fetus which is only a few weeks along is not sentiment,  that from a philosophical perspective it is best described as a “potential person” rather than a person, since it has no exposure to the world, no education or experience, and is floating in amniotic fluid in it’s mothers’ womb, etc.  At the time, I thought I was effectively defending the pro-choice position.   But after I left and went back to my dorm room, I found myself thinking about the  woman’s position. It really bothered me. I had spent my entire life unthinkingly adhering to the liberal pro-choice views taught to me by my liberal parents.  The popular culture all around me only reinforced those  views. But that day, I knew that this woman, and the pro-life movement, was right. Abortion is murder. I couldn’t deny it.  When she said “abortion is murder,” all of my illusions dissolved just like that.

The other thing that really won me over was seeing how much the pro-lifers cared about the issue.  They cared — really cared, to the point where they were willing to get arrested — about something other than themselves.  Again, I had no exposure to babies. As a 20-year-old man, I had no maternal instincts. Children were an alien and frightening responsibility.  I couldn’t understand why anyone would choose to champion the cause of babies over sexual freedom and hedonism. That sounds awful, but it’s how I felt back then.  I’m giving you the unvarnished truth. When I saw the pro-lifers care so deeply about something other than themselves, this moved me.  That, combined with their honesty, is what changed my view on this issue.

The pro-life movement is not known for its moderation.  I suppose they could try to win people over from a liberal perspective, by throwing concerts and having tattooed rock stars speak out in favor of natural family planning. They could say that sex is better without a condom, that babies are a lot of fun, and that parenthood is cool.  But if they were do do that, it would ring hollow.

 So I don’t think that we should debate from the liberal perspective. We should just tell the truth about what we believe. That’s the most effective strategy.  I realize that some of the older readers from the baby boom generation have been transitioned to work toward consensus and avoid controversy all their lives. It will be very difficult for them to overcome those instincts. But telling the truth is the best way to get our message out.

Laura writes:

TroperA makes some good points, particularly about Sullivan’s Law, but I disagree with him when he says:

How to do this? Well, for one thing, I would not object to the gay couple’s inclusion into your group. In fact, I would embrace them. Not as people you want to welcome, but secretly as an opportunity to teach your fellow club members what they and the leftists are really trying to accomplish. You must ACT as the concerned and caring person, who sees the leftists engaged in self-destructive behavior and who really wants to help them.

While it is important to understand the liberal mentality and especially the elevation of niceness, this is too much of a concession. There is no reason to accept the homosexual (please don’t use the word “gay”) couple. Doing so, no matter what the strategy, is wrong.

I agree with Mr. Hess’s basic point. However, one must also, as TroperA advises, understand the mind of one’s opponent.

Amy writes:

Charles is fortunate in that while he is being faced with the homosexualist agenda interjecting itself into his wine group, he can choose to bow out of it if he decides to (which in my opinion he should do, pronto, since the wine group has now become corrupted via infiltration by the leftist couple). Angst over whether to continue membership in a group which is entirely voluntary that has been corrupted by wanting to introduce sexual perversion into it is a no-brainer to me. Charles can start his own group.

How would you like to have this type of problem proudly present itself in your extended family? Now that will cause some real angst. How many family members will have the courage to stand firm against the LGBTQ, etc. juggernaut that is currently steamrollering the world when it means you will be shunned and shamed as “intolerant” by other family members who find it easier to give in to their agenda than stand up for the truth? Or when it means that you and your family won’t be invited to participate in family events? This is where hard decisions will have to be made. Do you stand for the truth or do you help to decimate the concept of the family by aiding the homosexualists in spreading their horrific lies?

Laura writes:

It’s very difficult. But at least we have some clear guidance:

Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword.

For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

And a man’s enemies shall be they of his own household.

He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me, is not worthy of me.

And he that taketh not up his cross, and followeth me, is not worthy of me.

He that findeth his life, shall lose it: and he that shall lose his life for me, shall find it. [Matthew 10:34-39]

 J. writes:

TroperA’s comment is encouraging and got me wondering if there is anywhere that traditionalist rebuttals of classical leftist tropes (tripe?) are laid out simply, with a view to their use in conversations of this sort?

I realize that a deep understanding is far preferable to a ‘crib sheet’ approach, but I am not a deep thinker, nor do I have the time to invest in huge amounts of reading and processing in order to be able to defeat or enlighten leftists. I am sure I can roundly criticized for this, but it’s the way things are at this point in my life. It would be wonderful to have access to bullet point versions like those offered by TroperA, ideally with a link or so each.

I’m sure there are huge numbers of suitable primers for the other side. Maybe there are others here who would also find this idea interesting.And maybe something already exists…

Forta Leza writes:

I read the original post on Charles’s dilemma and here are my thoughts:

1.  Charles needs to get his own house in order.  Part of the point of male leadership is to make difficult decisions; to do things which may result in discomfort or conflict but which are ultimately the better choice.

2.  Besides being right, Charles actually has two other big advantages to help him win this conflict.  The first big advantage is that the Liberals don’t know his agenda while he knows theirs.  That’s why it would be a big mistake to confront the Liberals as he proposes.  If they are aware that he is the main opponent to the homosexual couple, they will find ways to attack Charles.  And Liberals tend to be very good at this since they are constantly thinking about their social standing and status.  (In fact, that’s probably why they are Liberals in the first place.  The same couple probably would have been hard-core Nazis in 1930s Germany and hard-core Communists back in the old Soviet Union.)

The second big advantage is that the group does not have a lot of capital tied up.  It does not have an endowment or own property.  So it will not be too hard for Charles to shift the battleground.

3.  So here’s my suggestion:  Charles should organize a smaller get-together of four or five couples from the group about mid-way through the month.  This should NOT be done explicitly to oppose the Liberals or to avoid the homosexuals.  Instead, he should find a plausible reason to have this get-together.  For example, he could say that someone gave him a bottle of fancy Scotch Whiskey and he thought it would be nice to have a whiskey and wine get-together.  He could say that he’s making the get-together more limited since there is not enough whiskey.  Or something like that.  Basically come up with a plausible nice-sounding reason to have the get-together.

Still, he should choose couples which he thinks are most likely to oppose the Liberals and Gays.

He should make sure that the gathering is a lot of fun and casually suggest that they repeat it next month.  After a few months, he will have a club within a club going and can suggest expanding it.  But when that suggestion is made, he needs to make sure that a tradition is started that new admits come in by secret ballot AND any member is free to “blackball” a proposed new admit.

Meanwhile, he should be reasonably friendly towards the Liberals and the [Homos] in the old club.  He should have some important business commitment on the night when the [Homos’] membership is discussed so that he can keep his cards close to his chest without betraying his principles.    He should be careful not to present the new club as a competitor.  He should avoid discussing it, but if pressed, it should be presented as a complimentary club and not a rival.

Then he can take a wait and see approach.  If the Liberals and [Homos] alienate all of the old guard, he can just drift away and take the rest of the old guard with him.  That’s the most likely outcome, i.e. the Liberals and [Homos] will bring in more of their own kind.  Which would be a big problem if it were a university setting since you can’t pack up a campus or an endowment.

But here, the Liberals are attempting to parasitize a much more elusive asset — social connections.

Last, he should resist the temptation to have any kind of direct confrontation with the Liberals or [Homos.]  It’s very unlikely he will win since they have a lot of practice with that kind of nastiness.  They are VERY good at twisting peoples’ words to make them look bad.

Laura writes:

You say Charles should exhibit male leadership with his wife, but basically your plan, which is prudent in many ways though I don’t think it’s necessary or right for him to lie (in other words, he should simply invite the others over without giving a reason and say he can’t come to the crucial meeting without giving a reason), seems to be what she would recommend. She is also against the normalization of homosexuality, but, as Charles said, she thinks he should avoid a direct confrontation.

Ryan M. writes:

First, I’d like to address the concerns of commenter J. He asked where to find something akin to primer about how to understand and successfully argue with Leftists. Please direct him to the late, great, website of Lawrence Auster at VFR 

Secondly, I believe Forta Leza’s comments are the correct course of action. It it more important to preserve the social corrections, which Forta Leza describes as an “elusive asset” because it directly affects not only his relationship with his wife, but an important aspect of his business and personal success. Creating a second group from the first will be no small task, but it is worthy of the task. It also has the added benefit that other members in Charles second group will witness the decline of first group as it is turned by the Leftists into something far less desirable.

Creating new rules, such as voting for the inclusion of new members by secret ballot and/or the ability of a stall and stop the admission of controversial invitees, will be a way to secure the new group from a ‘hostile takeover” in the future.

Starting a new group need not involve lying. It could begin with the husbands getting together to play golf, play card games, or just a traditional smoke-filled cigar room.  Eventually the wives get involved, and voila, the old wine club is back, and better for it. The friendships involved in recreating it will potentially be deeper and more meaningful as well. And he can still keep his poker night.

Laura writes:

VFR is the best resource on the Internet for understanding the psychology of liberalism. I mention it so often, I sometimes assume everyone knows of it.

After giving it much thought, I believe Charles should follow these basic rules:

1. He must reject any show of support for inclusion of the homosexual couple.

2. He should begin to withdraw discreetly from the group now.

3. He must not engage in the slightest lie or subterfuge about his disengagement. But at the same time, he should not discuss his motives with anyone but his wife. The liberal couple will attempt to do serious harm to him socially if they know he is the enemy.

4. He should begin to establish a new social life that includes no possibility of tolerance for homosexuality.

5. He should never appear at a gathering of the original wine club at which any homosexual couple will be in attendance.

TroperA. writes:

Matthew, while I admire your honesty and commitment to reason, you really must realize that forthrightness and honesty will not work on the liberal mind. You’re dealing with people who have damaged brains–who are invested in their ideas and are incapable of abandoning them. You will probably not be able to convince them of their folly, but no matter what methods you use, you may be able to sway some fence-sitters into seeing the logic of your side.

Contrary to what some people around here believe, I am not trying to push LIBERAL ideas onto people with my methods– I’m merely trying to reveal to the liberals how little they really care about the people they’re purporting to help by conversationally following the things they support to their logical conclusion. (Which is usually harm to the people they’re purporting to help.) By rubbing their faces in the truth I can help to discredit their message.

Forta Leza writes:

Thank you for publishing and responding to my comment. I have a short further response:

1. If you change my language e.g. “Homo” instead of “Gay,” please use brackets so that readers know it’s your words not mine. [Laura writes: I have repeatedly reminded readers not to use the term “gay.” Sometimes I miss it, as in the case of TroperA., but I can’t count the times I have had to change it. I don’t like it used at this site. However, yes, I should have bracketed it in your case because “Homo,” which I replaced with your gay because it seemed to fit better with your labeling, is an unconventional usage. I apologize for not making that clear. Please don’t use “gay” in any form in the future if you comment again. And generally when I change the word, I will not use brackets.]

2. I agree that my proposal does not necessarily go against the wishes of Charles’ wife. Nevertheless, my impression from his e-mail is that he is too deferential to his wife’s wishes. (Of course (a) he should listen to her carefully and take her wishes into account in making decisions; and (b) in making decisions he should not put his own interests first; he should do what is best for his family; his countrymen; and the wishes of the Almighty.)

3. If you are being persecuted for your beliefs, it’s not necessarily wrong to lie in order to conceal those beliefs. Of course sometimes it’s better to stand up and tell the truth but other times a little white lie is better. In many ways this is a practical decision. But you need to keep in mind the situation in the United States today — people really are being persecuted for their beliefs. And the Liberals really would send people like Charles to reeducation camps if they had enough power to make it happen. And of course there is a danger that a string of white lies will morph into the same hypocrisy which makes Charles’ fight so difficult. But I think that danger can be dealt with by having a clear idea of what your are trying to accomplish and taking regular time to think about the Almighty One’s Commandments in connection with one’s life.

Laura writes:

I think he could manage to withdraw in this case without lying.